jbridger wrote:the political correct crowd is a bunch of pansies. Good thing they don't defend us or we would have been overrun by a dictator long ago.

The right has as much ownership of the PC as the left. The left may have started it, but the right has been quick to establish their own brand of PC.

Actually, I would say that the right started true political correctness long before the term was even coined.

For instance, watch how they react IRL if you challenge any of their cherished belief system. Ask where a "free market" is enshrined in the Constitution. Ask them which country is really responsible for winning World War II. Challenge them on the mythical version of Christopher Columbus. Challenge them on this being a "Christian nation". Ask why xtian privilege should continue. Compare and contrast religious fundies of xtian variety vs. the Muslim variety. Ask why religious beliefs deserve respect and serious consideration.

And challenge anything about their mythical version of American history, and they'll often call you a "revisionist".

That is the real political correctness, IMHO, and very often these things aren't really challenged in any meaningful way in the "liberal media", either.

What the cons call "political correctness" is often just a case where someone is asking for a minority group to have equal footing.

[quote]pohid3 wrote:The University of Colorado proudly claims Justice Byron White as an alum. CU had a distinguished Political Science Professor, Dr. Rozek, who was conservative, brilliant and a gentleman. Both men are now deceased. If they had sat on the selection committee, the University of Colorado might well have been able to find a better "visiting conservative" than Professor Hayward, who mocks the University's policies and its students.

If Hayward's published comments are an example of his scholarship, then it would have been much cheaper for CU just to put a radio in the classroom and tune to any of the right wing talk shows, such as Rosen's or Limbaugh. Perhaps that is Rosen's goal.

How very sad to see what has happened to what was once Colorado's leading public university.

I do not believe that this is "hate speech." I do believe that the Professor is entitled to academic freedom. I just don't believe that we taxpayers should have to pay for it

.[/quote]

Your in luck... His post on Powerline is not something the University paid him to do, in fact his position is funded with private donations and is only for this school year. According to some students that were asked, his opinion on the long acronym it is not something he has talked about in the classroom.

Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.

HEF wrote;Exactly what I thought you would say. Sexual harassment is a matter of admiration. Telling racial jokes is just comedy. Making fun of your employer's sexual orientation policies falls into the same category. Any criticism of such comments is oppression by liberal/progressives, bla, bla. barf.

"Exactly what I thought you would say" - except I never said 3 out of the 4 things you bring up. And the one thing I do respond to you have extrapolated on my response. And still there is a distinct difference between harassment and hate speech. You are proving my point that liberals believe anything that doesn't align perfectly with their ideology is by default hate speech. Thank you for providing evidence confirming my postulation.

All baloney aside, we live in a democracy. I'm not sure who said it, but it has been said that if you do not feel a push back, then you are not living in a democracy. For example, peer pressure is something grade school kids learn about, and it is something that is part of our every day lives.

The conservative CU professor is supposed to be a professional. He may not agree with the political protections that the law bestows on certain classes, and he may not agree with CU's nondiscrimination policy concerning certain protected classes, but he should know that if he says ignorant poop, there is going to be push back.

I agree that the professor's speech is not hate speech. It is common, everyday, ignorant speech. Speech that is protected by the First Amendment. Except, the professor is not immune from criticism. He deserves the push back because he is supposed to have an intellect and act like a professional.

Maybe, as you say, liberals and progressives are intolerant and they should not have called the comments hate speech. I count three people who said it was hate speech. Woop dee do. They have as much right to spew ignorant poop as you or Mr. Hayward.

It's push back. Democracy at work. You should have learned that somewhere around second grade.

Mike Rosen wrote;"Some may disagree, but no reasonable person could find anything remotely hateful or oppressive in his analysis."

Therein lies the problem, liberal/progressive oppressors are anything but reasonable. In their mind the fact that someone's opinion differs from theirs' qualifies it as hate speech.

I'm sure this is exactly what you thought about Ward Churchill - his bleatings about the "little Eichmanns" was just a difference of opinion. Right?

Didn't think so.

Interestingly enough, Rosen didn't either.....

I'm still waiting for the liberal visiting scholar for BYU, or Colorado College.....

Colorado College? Colorado College (a private school) is a haven of liberalism in the notoriously conservative city of Colorado Springs. I don't know that from personal experience but from second hand opinions, knowing 2 people that attended the college. Also from a website that gives reviews, states that... "As one senior puts it: “CC is a super-liberal bubble within the conservative fortress of Colorado Springs.” A college review by NICHE gives CC a conservative rating of 5.56 when rating the most conservative schools in Colorado; CU @ Boulder gets a 5.74 (more conservative ). Colorado Christian is the most conservative at 8.38.

CC is not a school that needs a "visiting Liberal" professor, they (liberals) are well represented.

The University of Colorado Boulder is a public research University. BYU is a private university. Private universities rely directly on student and alumni funding in order to operate. Unlike a public state university, the private school receives no direct subsidy from the state that the school is located in. CU should have relatively more accountability to the taxpayer to provide or at least "strive" to provide a more ... "diverse" education overall, including in politics. CU is known to be very liberal and adding a visiting professor that is relatively conservative is the least it can do being a public university. But Hayward isn't even paid by the University, his position is paid for via donations.

Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.

HEF wrote;Exactly what I thought you would say. Sexual harassment is a matter of admiration. Telling racial jokes is just comedy. Making fun of your employer's sexual orientation policies falls into the same category. Any criticism of such comments is oppression by liberal/progressives, bla, bla. barf.

"Exactly what I thought you would say" - except I never said 3 out of the 4 things you bring up. And the one thing I do respond to you have extrapolated on my response. And still there is a distinct difference between harassment and hate speech. You are proving my point that liberals believe anything that doesn't align perfectly with their ideology is by default hate speech. Thank you for providing evidence confirming my postulation.

All baloney aside, we live in a democracy. I'm not sure who said it, but it has been said that if you do not feel a push back, then you are not living in a democracy. For example, peer pressure is something grade school kids learn about, and it is something that is part of our every day lives.

The conservative CU professor is supposed to be a professional. He may not agree with the political protections that the law bestows on certain classes, and he may not agree with CU's nondiscrimination policy concerning certain protected classes, but he should know that if he says ignorant poop, there is going to be push back.

I agree that the professor's speech is not hate speech. It is common, everyday, ignorant speech. Speech that is protected by the First Amendment. Except, the professor is not immune from criticism. He deserves the push back because he is supposed to have an intellect and act like a professional.

Maybe, as you say, liberals and progressives are intolerant and they should not have called the comments hate speech. I count three people who said it was hate speech. Woop dee do. They have as much right to spew ignorant poop as you or Mr. Hayward.

It's push back. Democracy at work. You should have learned that somewhere around second grade.

He did not say that he disagrees with protected classes law and he didn't necessarily say he disagreed with CU's policy, just that he thought it astonishing the time and energy devoted to such "nonsense".

“I found this offensive, bordering on what I think most people would say is hate speech,” said chairman Paul Chinowsky in the Boulder Daily Camera. “If any (other) faculty member said this, we would find ourselves in a dean’s office or possibly on suspension for writing this.” Chinsowsky does not think the board will go "far enough"... he's gone next month.

I doubt it.

Whether we live in a "Democracy" or a Republic doesn't determine whether we have freedom of speech.

Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.

HEF wrote;Exactly what I thought you would say. Sexual harassment is a matter of admiration. Telling racial jokes is just comedy. Making fun of your employer's sexual orientation policies falls into the same category. Any criticism of such comments is oppression by liberal/progressives, bla, bla. barf.

"Exactly what I thought you would say" - except I never said 3 out of the 4 things you bring up. And the one thing I do respond to you have extrapolated on my response. And still there is a distinct difference between harassment and hate speech. You are proving my point that liberals believe anything that doesn't align perfectly with their ideology is by default hate speech. Thank you for providing evidence confirming my postulation.

All baloney aside, we live in a democracy. I'm not sure who said it, but it has been said that if you do not feel a push back, then you are not living in a democracy. For example, peer pressure is something grade school kids learn about, and it is something that is part of our every day lives.

The conservative CU professor is supposed to be a professional. He may not agree with the political protections that the law bestows on certain classes, and he may not agree with CU's nondiscrimination policy concerning certain protected classes, but he should know that if he says ignorant poop, there is going to be push back.

I agree that the professor's speech is not hate speech. It is common, everyday, ignorant speech. Speech that is protected by the First Amendment. Except, the professor is not immune from criticism. He deserves the push back because he is supposed to have an intellect and act like a professional.

Maybe, as you say, liberals and progressives are intolerant and they should not have called the comments hate speech. I count three people who said it was hate speech. Woop dee do. They have as much right to spew ignorant poop as you or Mr. Hayward.

It's push back. Democracy at work. You should have learned that somewhere around second grade.

It often seems as if the conservative version of "free speech" is that conservatives can say whatever they want, on anything, and no one ever should ever even mildly criticize what they say.

If even the mildest rebuke does happen when a con says something incredibly stupid and callous, a torrent of conservative butthurt and pearl clutching commences forthwith.

CharlesDarwin wrote:It often seems as if the conservative version of "free speech" is that conservatives can say whatever they want, on anything, and no one ever should ever even mildly criticize what they say.

If even the mildest rebuke does happen when a con says something incredibly stupid and callous, a torrent of conservative butthurt and pearl clutching commences forthwith.

It often seems as if the {radical} version of "free speech" is that {radicals} can say whatever they want, on anything, and no one ever should ever even mildly criticize what they say.

If even the mildest rebuke happens when a {radical} says something incredibly stupid and callous, a torrent of {radical} butthurt and pearl clutching commences forthwith.

There, I fixed it for you. I have found that extremists, whatever their stripe, are intolerant of opposing opinions, thin skinned, and often seek protection for their impractical views. Meanwhile the moderates accept that there is a difference of opinion, seek a compromise where both parties get some satisfaction & some disappointment, and tend to arrive at practical solutions. Their view is more shades of grey, instead of just black or white.In my recollection, the term PC started being used to describe the restrictions of free speech being imposed at liberal Ivy league schools during the 1960s. I would grant that their actions were similar to the witch hunts of McCarthyism a decade earlier. The pendulum swings with new terminology for each cycle.

CharlesDarwin wrote:For instance, watch how they react IRL if you challenge any of their cherished belief system. Ask where a "free market" is enshrined in the Constitution. Ask them which country is really responsible for winning World War II. Challenge them on the mythical version of Christopher Columbus. Challenge them on this being a "Christian nation". Ask why xtian privilege should continue. Compare and contrast religious fundies of xtian variety vs. the Muslim variety. Ask why religious beliefs deserve respect and serious consideration....

So enlighten us!

1) I can't find anyplace in the Constitution which specifically recognizes "free market". At the founding, we had a free market economy, a slave economy, and a guild economy. Eventually, the slave economy was defeated while free market and guild (union) economies continue to challenge each other. There have been numerous experiments with communist economies, but none have been truly successful.2) Who is responsible for winning WWII? France? Poland? China? Korea? All conquered. England was hanging on. Russia needed our material support in addition to their climate. Others contributed, but it was the industrial might of the US and the ability to deliver that power around the world which ended WWII. Or are you proposing that the Germans, Italians, and Japanese won WWII.3) Would that version of Columbus be the one where he traded smallpox for syphilis? Or would that be the one where he behaved in a manner different from any other conquering power of the time or history, like say the Mayans or the Tartars?4) This nation was founded as a Christian nation by a variety of Christian colonists from Europe. The people who wrote our Constitution were not Hindus; they did not practice Islam or Shinto. They did however recognize religious persecution, many having fled to avoid it themselves, and therefore tried to instill tolerance into our culture.5) That being said, I see no reason for continued Christian privilege. Though I consider myself Christian, I do not feel that Christmas should rank above Yom Kippur or Ramadan as a national holiday.6) How many Christian suicide bombers were in the news last week? Last month? Last year? I'll grant there may have been a few in the last decade. Now how many reports of Islamic suicide bombers do you recall? How many Christian honor killings have been reported? The contrast is the level of violence, often against innocents, in support of their religious beliefs.7) Religious beliefs deserve respect & consideration because it is politically correct, tolerant, and polite. But that consideration stops when you infringe on my right to my beliefs.

spstools wrote:2) Who is responsible for winning WWII? France? Poland? China? Korea? All conquered. England was hanging on. Russia needed our material support in addition to their climate. Others contributed, but it was the industrial might of the US and the ability to deliver that power around the world which ended WWII. Or are you proposing that the Germans, Italians, and Japanese won WWII.

The complete destruction of the Wehrmacht 6th Army at the Battle of Stalingrad is what defeated Nazi Germany. Imagine had it been victorious and available to defend the beaches at Normandy....

spstools wrote:2) Who is responsible for winning WWII? France? Poland? China? Korea? All conquered. England was hanging on. Russia needed our material support in addition to their climate. Others contributed, but it was the industrial might of the US and the ability to deliver that power around the world which ended WWII. Or are you proposing that the Germans, Italians, and Japanese won WWII.

The complete destruction of the Wehrmacht 6th Army at the Battle of Stalingrad is what defeated Nazi Germany. Imagine had it been victorious and available to defend the beaches at Normandy....

And was that defeat handed to the Wehrmacht the result of the Russian people, the Russian climate, or US arms (Lend/Lease)? I would contend all of the above. Mother Russia has always had a way of defeating those who attempt to conquer the Russian people. I'm not saying that the Eastern Front wasn't a factor in Germany's final defeat, just that the US had a hand in that too. Or perhaps we could say that Germany lost the war because of their military genius, Der Furher, and his over reaching ways.

spstools wrote:2) Who is responsible for winning WWII? France? Poland? China? Korea? All conquered. England was hanging on. Russia needed our material support in addition to their climate. Others contributed, but it was the industrial might of the US and the ability to deliver that power around the world which ended WWII. Or are you proposing that the Germans, Italians, and Japanese won WWII.

The complete destruction of the Wehrmacht 6th Army at the Battle of Stalingrad is what defeated Nazi Germany. Imagine had it been victorious and available to defend the beaches at Normandy....

And was that defeat handed to the Wehrmacht the result of the Russian people, the Russian climate, or US arms (Lend/Lease)? I would contend all of the above. Mother Russia has always had a way of defeating those who attempt to conquer the Russian people. I'm not saying that the Eastern Front wasn't a factor in Germany's final defeat, just that the US had a hand in that too. Or perhaps we could say that Germany lost the war because of their military genius, Der Furher, and his over reaching ways.

You're not saying the Eastern Front wasn't a factor? The Eastern Front was the main factor in the defeat of Germany. To believe otherwise is disingenuous and bordering on delusional. Lend Lease? Did you know the Soviets produced over 168,000 T-34s. Yea, those 4,000 Shermans we gave them were definitely the turning point....

Dave II wrote:... The Eastern Front was the main factor in the defeat of Germany. ...

Upon further research, I stand corrected. The Battle of Stalingrad is considered the turning point of the European Campaign.

Thank you.It's not meant to diminish the tremendous sacrifices made by tens of thousands of American GIs from North Africa to Anzio, to Normandy to Bastogne and beyond. We Americans just tend to forget (or never learned) what happened in the East.

JAFA wrote:It's probably time for the DP to just go ahead and create a whole new section of "news" dedicated to "gender" issues. They could call it "Alphabet Soup". Then, every day, those who want 24/7/365 coverage of all things GLBTQRSTUV can find it in one convenient spot. Those of us who couldn't care less about someone else's sexual preferences (sexual orientation is a bogus term) and their endless desire for validation, can browse the news without all the unnecessary clutter and random assortments of consonants.

You know what you should do, right?

In order to show those pesky gays how their desires/attractions are a choice, and how easy it is to choose, you should choose to be gay for a week...you know, just to show them how easy it is to make the choice regarding orientation/preference..

No one has control over what thoughts enter their mind, or the feelings they experience. However, we ALL have a choice regarding exactly how we react to those thoughts and feelings.

Okay, so you are saying if the need arose, you could stop acting on your (presumably heterosexual) thoughts and feelings, and be either completely celibate or only have relations with the same sex?

Well, I answered you, but the DP deleted my post, again.Skin so thin, you could read a newspaper through it. That's my opinion of the DP mods and whiney losers who flag every post they don't like.

Dave II wrote:... We Americans just tend to forget (or never learned) what happened in the East.

I think "never learned", possibly because of the Cold War, is the reason. {EDIT} Can't teach the kids good things about our enemy, now can we?{/EDIT}I do remember watching captured German training films on how infantry should deal with those T-34s when I was in high school. {EDIT} In my own time in the military, I focused on the writings of Che & Mao and the tactics of asymmetric warfare, instead of the strategies of conventional war and army groups. {/EDIT}There are so many "what if"s associated with the rise & fall of the Third Reich. What if instead of dividing his army, Hitler has focused all of their forces on Moscow, or Stalingrad? What if Operation Torch (N. Africa, opening a second front as demanded by Stalin) had not tied up German resources, including Rommel? Just to name a few.War is a complex issue! Even those who study it for a living often disagree.

Mike Rosen wrote;"Some may disagree, but no reasonable person could find anything remotely hateful or oppressive in his analysis."

Therein lies the problem, liberal/progressive oppressors are anything but reasonable. In their mind the fact that someone's opinion differs from theirs' qualifies it as hate speech.

I'm sure this is exactly what you thought about Ward Churchill - his bleatings about the "little Eichmanns" was just a difference of opinion. Right?

Didn't think so.

Interestingly enough, Rosen didn't either.....

I'm still waiting for the liberal visiting scholar for BYU, or Colorado College.....

Colorado College? Colorado College (a private school) is a haven of liberalism in the notoriously conservative city of Colorado Springs. I don't know that from personal experience but from second hand opinions, knowing 2 people that attended the college. Also from a website that gives reviews, states that... "As one senior puts it: “CC is a super-liberal bubble within the conservative fortress of Colorado Springs.” A college review by NICHE gives CC a conservative rating of 5.56 when rating the most conservative schools in Colorado; CU @ Boulder gets a 5.74 (more conservative ). Colorado Christian is the most conservative at 8.38.

CC is not a school that needs a "visiting Liberal" professor, they (liberals) are well represented.

The University of Colorado Boulder is a public research University. BYU is a private university. Private universities rely directly on student and alumni funding in order to operate. Unlike a public state university, the private school receives no direct subsidy from the state that the school is located in. CU should have relatively more accountability to the taxpayer to provide or at least "strive" to provide a more ... "diverse" education overall, including in politics. CU is known to be very liberal and adding a visiting professor that is relatively conservative is the least it can do being a public university. But Hayward isn't even paid by the University, his position is paid for via donations.

The fact that you have to drive the difference in institutions and not address my point, shows that you don't really care for diverse thought. You just want a conservative professor at CU. However, if you were a recent student, then you'd know that conservative thought is found on campus. As well as liberal thought, but because it isn't overly lauded, as conservatives think it should. Instead it is translated by conservatives into, "there is not enough conservative thought on campuses". Conservative thought is one that cannot easily exist outside an hegemony. It works when it is in theoretical stages, but always falls a part in real world situations.

A lie will circle the globe before the truth has the chance to put its boots on. Terry Pratchett.

If you plan on winning based on the other team's best player getting hurt, and not on your team's abilities, you don't deserve to win anything.

I did not realize that Professor Hayward was not paid with public funds, but the position is funded with private money. The question is: "Who is funding this "visiting Conservative professor?" Does the funding source have veto power over the choice? Does the funding source sit on the "selection committee"? Is it appropriate to give a private source a public forum?Is there a conflict of interest?

pohid3 wrote:I did not realize that Professor Hayward was not paid with public funds, but the position is funded with private money. The question is: "Who is funding this "visiting Conservative professor?" Does the funding source have veto power over the choice? Does the funding source sit on the "selection committee"? Is it appropriate to give a private source a public forum?Is there a conflict of interest?

I am very concerned.

Hah! What you are is very transparent. In your earlier post you were upset that your tax money was paying for this, when shown your assertion was erroneous you now complain that private funds shouldn't be used for this. I have a feeling that were the circumstances such that a far left liberal activist was reaping the benefits and enjoying a similar soapbox you would be defending their right to do so and using the fact that they were being funded by a private entity as the main point of your argument in that defense.

JAFA wrote:It's probably time for the DP to just go ahead and create a whole new section of "news" dedicated to "gender" issues. They could call it "Alphabet Soup". Then, every day, those who want 24/7/365 coverage of all things GLBTQRSTUV can find it in one convenient spot. Those of us who couldn't care less about someone else's sexual preferences (sexual orientation is a bogus term) and their endless desire for validation, can browse the news without all the unnecessary clutter and random assortments of consonants.

You know what you should do, right?

In order to show those pesky gays how their desires/attractions are a choice, and how easy it is to choose, you should choose to be gay for a week...you know, just to show them how easy it is to make the choice regarding orientation/preference..

No one has control over what thoughts enter their mind, or the feelings they experience. However, we ALL have a choice regarding exactly how we react to those thoughts and feelings.

Okay, so you are saying if the need arose, you could stop acting on your (presumably heterosexual) thoughts and feelings, and be either completely celibate or only have relations with the same sex?

Well, I answered you, but the DP deleted my post, again.Skin so thin, you could read a newspaper through it. That's my opinion of the DP mods and whiney losers who flag every post they don't like.

"pohid3 wrote:I did not realize that Professor Hayward was not paid with public funds, but the position is funded with private money. The question is: "Who is funding this "visiting Conservative professor?" Does the funding source have veto power over the choice? Does the funding source sit on the "selection committee"? Is it appropriate to give a private source a public forum?Is there a conflict of interest?

I am very concerned."

"Hah! What you are is very transparent. In your earlier post you were upset that your tax money was paying for this, when shown your assertion was erroneous you now complain that private funds shouldn't be used for this. I have a feeling that were the circumstances such that a far left liberal activist was reaping the benefits and enjoying a similar soapbox you would be defending their right to do so and using the fact that they were being funded by a private entity as the main point of your argument in that defense."

@Island Survivor,

To be concerned is not to be "upset." You make up assumption about how i would feel if the professor were a "left liberal activist." But he is not. Nor, do you have anyway of knowing how I would feel if he were. This is not talk radio where you can toss assumptions about and be applauded by talk show propagandists.

Hayward has been given a platform in a tax payer supported institution; the fact that his salary is being paid by private funds raises real question about who has "bought" that opportunity. I continue to be concerned about this kind of "for sale" opportunities to teach students at a public university.